How programming in C got me in trouble with the law

[stonemcstone]

I've been programming in C for years, and never experienced troubles
until I started using the new RealC-32, a freeware C compiler from the
same company that makes RealPlayer and Quicktime. That's when the
trouble started. See, RealC-32 is like any other C compiler but with
one notable difference. Any time your code invokes undefined
behavior-- for example by dereferencing an uninitialized pointer--
rather than the usual segmentation fault, instead the program will chug
along as usual, but will silently start launching spam emails and
spyware from the computer.

It was only a matter of time before I accidentally forgot to initialize
a pointer before dereferencing it. Then, sure enough, in place of the
usual segfault, my computer started sending porn to every email account
on the 'net. Hours later, the feds busted down my door and I was
hauled off kicking and screaming.

At my trial I insisted I was not responsible for the spam, that it was
the fault of RealC-32. But a representative from the company pointed
out that they were completely in compliance with the C standard, which
allowed them free reign to do as they pleased with my computer once I
dereferenced that uninitialized pointer. The judge agreed that I was
merely using a RealC-32 extension to simplify the creation of the
spam-sending software, and that I was just as responsible for it as I
would be if I'd explicitly programmed it using, say, gcc. In the end I
was forced to succumb to their logic-- they were, afterall, quite
right.

EPILOGUE

Stone McStone continues to serve hard time in a federal "pound me in
the ass" prison. Hopefully he's learned his lesson about dereferencing
uninitialized pointers! RealC-32 has made millions of dollars by
selling adware contracts to small startup businesses. They are
currently negotiating with Diebold Inc. trying to win the contract to
provide the C compiler for Diebold's controversial e-voting machines.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Simon Biber wrote:

Frederick Gotham wrote:

No he didn't.

I've been programming in C for years, and never experienced troubles
until I started using the new RealC-32, a freeware C compiler from the
same company that makes RealPlayer and Quicktime.

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

My theories in random order:

1) Troll.
2) Someone very bored who decided to post random
stuff on a group.

<SNIP>

1) Troll or joke, take your pick.
2) What? Bored? Isn't everyone on this group?

I'm not.

[Simon Biber]

Harald van Dijk wrote:

Simon Biber wrote:

>Frederick Gotham wrote:

>>I've been programming in C for years, and never experienced troubles
until I started using the new RealC-32, a freeware C compiler from the
same company that makes RealPlayer and Quicktime.

No, Frederick Gotham did not write that.

My apologies to Frederick; I got confused.

--
Simon.

[Old Wolf]

st**********@ya hoo.com wrote:

At my trial I insisted I was not responsible for the spam, that it was
the fault of RealC-32. But a representative from the company pointed
out that they were completely in compliance with the C standard, which
allowed them free reign to do as they pleased with my computer once I
dereferenced that uninitialized pointer.

Actually that is an interesting point. Supposing this compiler did
actually exist, who should be found to be responsible for the spam?

Assuming you answer 'the makers of RealC-32', it seems there is a
sliding scale between this case, and the case of a regular program
on a regular compiler accidentally formatting the harddrive due to UB.

[William Hughes]

Old Wolf wrote:

st**********@ya hoo.com wrote:

At my trial I insisted I was not responsible for the spam, that it was
the fault of RealC-32. But a representative from the company pointed
out that they were completely in compliance with the C standard, which
allowed them free reign to do as they pleased with my computer once I
dereferenced that uninitialized pointer.

Actually that is an interesting point. Supposing this compiler did
actually exist, who should be found to be responsible for the spam?

Assuming you answer 'the makers of RealC-32', it seems there is a
sliding scale between this case, and the case of a regular program
on a regular compiler accidentally formatting the harddrive due to UB.

Well the makers should be responsible for behaviour that
a reasonble man would not anticipate.

So if the makers put a big red notice on the front of every
box saying "Warning, if you compile any program that
invokes behavious undefinied by the C standard, this
compiler will create an executable that sends out spam",
the makers would probably be fine (although they would
not sell many compilers). Otherwise they should
be responsible for the spam because a resonable man would
not expect a simple programming error to result
in a spamming executable.

On the other hand a reasonable man should expect that
a simple programming error would cause an
executable that attemps to execute at random locations
to be produced. If he runs this executable in
a system where such an executable can cause
damage, he has no one but himself to blame for
the damage.

- William Hughes

[Kenneth Brody]

William Hughes wrote:

>
Old Wolf wrote:

[...]

Actually that is an interesting point. Supposing this compiler did
actually exist, who should be found to be responsible for the spam?

Assuming you answer 'the makers of RealC-32', it seems there is a
sliding scale between this case, and the case of a regular program
on a regular compiler accidentally formatting the harddrive due to UB.

Well the makers should be responsible for behaviour that
a reasonble man would not anticipate.

So if the makers put a big red notice on the front of every
box saying "Warning, if you compile any program that
invokes behavious undefinied by the C standard, this
compiler will create an executable that sends out spam",
the makers would probably be fine (although they would
not sell many compilers). Otherwise they should
be responsible for the spam because a resonable man would
not expect a simple programming error to result
in a spamming executable.

What if the warning said:

Warning! If you compile any program that invokes undefined
behavior, the results may be *ANYTHING*, including, but not
limited to, the melting of your CPU, demons flying out of
your nose, or the slaying of your first-born male child. We
are not responsible for the results of your use of undefined
behavior.

[...]

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer .h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th***** ********@gmail. com>

[William Hughes]

Kenneth Brody wrote:

William Hughes wrote:

Old Wolf wrote:

[...]

Actually that is an interesting point. Supposing this compiler did
actually exist, who should be found to be responsible for the spam?
>
Assuming you answer 'the makers of RealC-32', it seems there is a
sliding scale between this case, and the case of a regular program
on a regular compiler accidentally formatting the harddrive due to UB.

Well the makers should be responsible for behaviour that
a reasonble man would not anticipate.

So if the makers put a big red notice on the front of every
box saying "Warning, if you compile any program that
invokes behavious undefinied by the C standard, this
compiler will create an executable that sends out spam",
the makers would probably be fine (although they would
not sell many compilers). Otherwise they should
be responsible for the spam because a resonable man would
not expect a simple programming error to result
in a spamming executable.

What if the warning said:

Warning! If you compile any program that invokes undefined
behavior, the results may be *ANYTHING*, including, but not
limited to, the melting of your CPU, demons flying out of
your nose, or the slaying of your first-born male child. We
are not responsible for the results of your use of undefined
behavior.

Then the makers would be saying that the use of the
program might be dangerous indeed
No one would purchase the compiler. This is an
indication that conformance to the C standard is
not a sufficient condition for comercial success.
(DUH!)

So when you are discussing more than whether
a given program has behaviour specified by the C standard you
have to take other factors into acount. However, the
restricted question of whether a given program has
behaviour specified by the C standard is an
interesting question. Indeed, it is often discussed on comp.lang.c

- William Hughes

[Ben Pfaff]

"William Hughes" <wp*******@hotm ail.comwrites:

Kenneth Brody wrote:

>What if the warning said:

Warning! If you compile any program that invokes undefined
behavior, the results may be *ANYTHING*, including, but not
limited to, the melting of your CPU, demons flying out of
your nose, or the slaying of your first-born male child. We
are not responsible for the results of your use of undefined
behavior.

Then the makers would be saying that the use of the
program might be dangerous indeed
No one would purchase the compiler. This is an
indication that conformance to the C standard is
not a sufficient condition for comercial success.

A popular compiler comes with strong warnings attached also:

NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

However, these warnings have not prevented it from becoming
widely used.
--
Just another C hacker.

[Keith Thompson]

Kenneth Brody <ke******@spamc op.netwrites:

William Hughes wrote:

>Old Wolf wrote:

[...]

Actually that is an interesting point. Supposing this compiler did
actually exist, who should be found to be responsible for the spam?

Assuming you answer 'the makers of RealC-32', it seems there is a
sliding scale between this case, and the case of a regular program
on a regular compiler accidentally formatting the harddrive due to UB.

Well the makers should be responsible for behaviour that
a reasonble man would not anticipate.

So if the makers put a big red notice on the front of every
box saying "Warning, if you compile any program that
invokes behavious undefinied by the C standard, this
compiler will create an executable that sends out spam",
the makers would probably be fine (although they would
not sell many compilers). Otherwise they should
be responsible for the spam because a resonable man would
not expect a simple programming error to result
in a spamming executable.

What if the warning said:

Warning! If you compile any program that invokes undefined
behavior, the results may be *ANYTHING*, including, but not
limited to, the melting of your CPU, demons flying out of
your nose, or the slaying of your first-born male child. We
are not responsible for the results of your use of undefined
behavior.

[...]

Then a user suing the compiler vendor for damages would not be able to
cite violation of the ISO C standard. The question of whether he'd be
able to cite anything else, or whether such a warning has any *legal*
significance, is well beyond the scope of this newsgroup.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.